I guess that's a good point. I forgot to include the fact that people like you and OnlyM3, beyond being complete rockheads, are also incredible cowards who feel compelled to pull a gun every time you "feel threatened" at any level.

Thanks for the correction.

phenn: That assumes he wasn't packing. Which you probably shouldn't. She didn't fire. I don't think any serious lines were crossed here. Not by her, anyway.

I don't either, I just find it amazing that some people are so dimwitted and cowardly that it seems like the only solution they can even conceive in a situation like this is pulling a gun.

People who's only available reaction to ever possible threat is "shoot it!" are, ironically, exactly the types of people who probably shouldn't be carrying guns in the first place.

aelat:Plus, it's illegal for someone with a CHL to brandish their weapon for the sole purpose of intimidation. It was probably easy for the woman in question to justify her actions to the police, but others should exercise caution if they plan to follow her example in similar situations. Even if you don't point the muzzle at someone, it is illegal to brandish a legally-owned-and-carried firearm to intimidate someone, even if "they started it." Obviously if you draw it with intent to shoot them and they get intimidated by that, you're A-OK.

THIS.

As I said before I'm predisposed to give the lady the benefit of the doubt, but it's still incumbent on all of us who carry legally to use discretion and good judgement.

Sure, but if you shoot someone there's probably still going to be court hearings while you clear yourself, and therapy, and therapy for your kid. What a drag. A naked guy with running around with capsaicin covered nuts until the cops show up and taze him? That's a story you can tell your grandkids.

I think that would traumatize the child more than mom running the guy off by showing him her firearm. It probably could have been accomplished without the child even noticing, if it was a little kid.

I know that actually reading and understanding a thread is a tall order before opening your maw and making a fool of yourself, but when the context for the string of comments you're replying to starts off only 9 posts deep, you could at least put that effort into understanding what's going on.

I have not, to this point, said one word about what this woman did, except to suggest off-handedly that it would be more amusing had she given him a nut shot. The string of comments you are jumping into has nothing to do with her directly and everything to do with OnlyM3's (who, being a complete coward as usual, dropped his turd in the thread and ran away like a little biatch) immediate descent into derp-constructed strawmen by implying that anybody who suggests there even were alternatives must be pro-rape:

wth?! What's with all the farkers in this thread who are a-ok with scumbags who expose themselves in public? "Oh, the poor innocent pervert who was just engaging in some harmless dick-flashing. It's beyond the pale that the horrible, terrible woman pointed her death-stick at him over something sooooo trivial! I do declare!"

Max Awesome:wth?! What's with all the farkers in this thread who are a-ok with scumbags who expose themselves in public? "Oh, the poor innocent pervert who was just engaging in some harmless dick-flashing. It's beyond the pale that the horrible, terrible woman pointed her death-stick at him over something sooooo trivial! I do declare!"

Freaks, all of you.

Many a criminal has wished that the public was so pro-crime and somnambulant about this.

Vegan Meat Popsicle:Headso: the victim of a sex offender felt threatened enough to pull her gun while being victimized, I'll side with the victim while you keep blaming her for her actions, thanks.

I'm not blaming her for anything, I just think you're a dumbass because the only response you seem to even have in your repertoire is "SHOOT IT!"

I can't even imagine how weak a person would have to be that the only reaction they know to some perceived threat is to automatically pull a firearm. What a horrible life that must be, in such constant fear and helplessness.

I legally carry a revolver. Which is why I don't live in fear and helplessness.

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

so here I am the bottom feeder, replying to a stale thread - so you know I'm pre-shamed

Training, I've had training and the most salient point for here is this: "I acted to counter a threat" and say not much more than that until you talk to a lawyer. I guess that concealed carrying training includes something like this.

I know that actually reading and understanding a thread is a tall order before opening your maw and making a fool of yourself, but when the context for the string of comments you're replying to starts off only 9 posts deep, you could at least put that effort into understanding what's going on.

I have not, to this point, said one word about what this woman did, except to suggest off-handedly that it would be more amusing had she given him a nut shot. The string of comments you are jumping into has nothing to do with her directly and everything to do with OnlyM3's (who, being a complete coward as usual, dropped his turd in the thread and ran away like a little biatch) immediate descent into derp-constructed strawmen by implying that anybody who suggests there even were alternatives must be pro-rape:

OnlyM3: mynameist

Nice, because upping the ante to violence is always amusing.You're french, aren't you. Your advice to her would be what? Drop and spread next time?

I guess that's a good point. I forgot to include the fact that people like you and OnlyM3, beyond being complete rockheads, are also incredible cowards who feel compelled to pull a gun every time you "feel threatened" at any level.

Thanks for the correction.

phenn: That assumes he wasn't packing. Which you probably shouldn't. She didn't fire. I don't think any serious lines were crossed here. Not by her, anyway.

I don't either, I just find it amazing that some people are so dimwitted and cowardly that it seems like the only solution they can even conceive in a situation like this is pulling a gun.

People who's only available reaction to ever possible threat is "shoot it!" are, ironically, exactly the types of people who probably shouldn't be carrying guns in the first place.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to share it, at the same time you should be careful of who you approach aggressively while masturbating because there are plenty of people that carry guns and are willing to ruin your little joke. Old people, little guys, women with children, most of them will find it humorous when you shiat yourself backing up and fall in it.

Displaying the means and willingness to forcibly say "NO" ended her encounter satisfactorily with no one getting shot so she proved that she has excellent self-control. That is what really bothers you, isn't it?

jbuist:Ghengis_Socrates: The Ruger .380 does not have a safety. Loading the magazine and releasing the slide chambers a round. She did exactly that; She was ready to fire, but didn't. Not sure why the safety matters. If you don't think you may have to shoot, don't chamber a round. She felt there was a possibility that she may have to shoot, so she did. How is this a problem?

I wasn't being critical of her choice, just pointing out most handguns don't have manual safeties.

But she should have chambered a round before she left the house. Just silly carrying around a half loaded gun.

I would agree with your first point if you changed it to "many handguns don't have safeties", 4 out of 4 of mine do have them. And it is totally beside the point.Your second point was totally correct.So, how many points should she get for acting correctly?Aggressively approach a woman alone with her child in a remote location and you deserve having a gun pointed at you whether you're holding your dick or a Bible.

jbuist:But she should have chambered a round before she left the house. Just silly carrying around a half loaded gun.

Depends on the gun. It's often a good idea to carry older, non-drop-safe guns (like a 1911) in Condition 3 (loaded magazine, no round in the chamber). Similarly, an old style revolver without a transfer bar safety should be carried with an empty chamber below the hammer. Many people, especially those who learned to shoot before the 1960s, were taught that this is the "right" way to carry... especially if they served in WWII or Korea (or learned from someone who did). And it was, then.

Even though it's mostly obsolete advice with modern firearms, it's still a good practice. It's always safe to carry any gun in condition 3 regardless of what safety features it has or lacks, but there are many (mostly older) guns that aren't safe to carry in condition 2 or condition 1. Erring on the side of caution is almost always a good idea when handling firearms.